Another Author Shows JK Rowling How To Embrace Fans

from the don't-sue-them,-for-starters dept

Wed, Aug 6th 2008 10:34am — Mike Masnick

We covered the ridiculous lawsuit that JK Rowling had filed against a fan who created a reference book, The Harry Potter Lexicon to supplement her massively popular novels. At the actual trial, it appeared that Rowling didn't have much of a legal argument against the publication, so she went for an emotional argument that can be summed up as: she just didn't like it.

Contrast that to situation around author Stephenie Meyer and her Twilight Vampire books (as pointed out by Against Monopoly). Meyer actively embraced the fan community as much as impossible -- including encouraging fans to create a comparable Twilight Lexicon reference guide, Meyer not only was thrilled, she helped fill in some characters' back stories. And, it's worked. The community has responded to her and become huge evangelists for the series and everything associated with it. These days, if your fans want to help advertise your works for you, it seems pretty backwards to then sue them for it. Nice to see that other successful authors aren't following Rowling's awful lead.

Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.

Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.

While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.

–The Techdirt Team

Filed Under: authors, community, fan fiction, jk rowling, stephenie meyer, twilight vampire

50 Comments

If you liked this post, you may also be interested in...

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

Anonymous Coward, 6 Aug 2008 @ 10:50am

Well maybe Rowling wanted to leave some aspects of the story up to the reader's interpretation. Perhaps having a supplement to AID the reader's experience is unnecessary and against Rowling's vision for the Harry Potter books.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 6 Aug 2008 @ 10:55am
  
  Re:
  Well maybe Rowling wanted to leave some aspects of the story up to the reader's interpretation.
  
  That'd probably be why she went on record saying that Dumbledore was gay, rather than just a nice old man, right?
  
  No, Rowling likes having control, and she got pissed when someone took 'her' ideas and did something with them without her permission.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Not a Potter fan, 6 Aug 2008 @ 11:22am
    
    Yea I agree. I think she was just upset that someone came up with the idea before she did. Greedy power hungry whiner TAKE THAT!
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 6 Aug 2008 @ 11:39am
    
    Re: Re:
    QFT, QED
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- moe, 6 Aug 2008 @ 12:10pm
  
  Re:
  That argument (leaving it up to the readers' interpretations) might hold some water except for one thing: Ms. Rowling has so much as said that now she can't create the same thing that she's suing the creator of the compendium over because he already did it.
  
  And, she also didn't have a problem when the creator put the information up on a website. IIRC, she actually remarked positively about the website.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- interval, 6 Aug 2008 @ 1:16pm
  
  Re:
  Well maybe Rowling's future plans have nothing to do with the legal argument that she didn't have and the other author had every right to write whatever he/she wanted about Rowling's series that he/she wanted anyway. Supposing what Rowling's intentions are/were have nothing to do with anything and has everything to do with copyright law which makes such usage completely above board and legal. End of story.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Falena, 6 Aug 2008 @ 8:43pm
  
  Re:
  LOL! If that were true, she wouldn't have given out so much useless information in her interviews after DH came out, some of that information being completely contradictory to what she said in previous interviews, and what happened in the books themselves. No one will ever convince me that the Gay Dumbledore thing was anything more than a publicity stunt to get a rise out of fans. If she wanted us to believe he was gay, she would have written it in the books, and she didn't.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 1 Oct 2010 @ 11:58am
    
    Re: Re:
    why do you think he was so enamored with grindewald and refused to see past his obvious maliciousness? Dumbledore's being gay was not importaqnt to the plot so it didn't need to come out directly. You're a short sighted moron, I knew he was gay long before that interview. Just because you dont have the analytical capacity to read between the lines doesn't mean that noone else does.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Richard Ahlquist (profile), 7 Aug 2008 @ 9:36am
  
  Re:
  Good argument all Rowling would have to do is say so and let the fans decide then.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 6 Aug 2008 @ 10:51am

Oh, and it's too bad that Rowling lives in such a branded community.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 6 Aug 2008 @ 11:30am

As a goth, let me just say WHO CARES ABOUT VAMPIRES?!

Vampires were played out a deacde ago. A bunch of mopey, arrogant, pretenious blood suckers that only fat mopey girls who have never been layed can fantasize about.

Anyone worth their salt these days is thoroughly into zombies.

This chick HAS to hand over reigns to the "fans" because that's the only way you can make any headway with such a played out, boring, uninteresting concept as "yet more vampire crap".
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Greg, 6 Aug 2008 @ 11:46am
  
  Re:
  As a human being, let me just say WHO CARES ABOUT GOTHS?
  
  Of course, I could give a rats ass about vampires and zombies, too.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 6 Aug 2008 @ 12:26pm
  
  Re:
  This chick HAS to hand over reigns to the "fans" because that's the only way you can make any headway with such a played out, boring, uninteresting concept as "yet more vampire crap".
  
  That's why she's looking for new blood. As any good vampire would.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- interval, 6 Aug 2008 @ 1:17pm
  
  Re:
  Aren't "goths" played out by now?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Twihard08, 6 Aug 2008 @ 1:37pm
  
  Re: response to comment
  As a person, let me just say WHO CARES THAT YOUR 'GOTH'
  Labels got old in the 7th grade.
  
  Secondly you obviously have no clue what your aruguing becuase you obviously havent read the twilight saga books.
  
  You probably were the 'fat mopey girl who had never been layed.' And who cares? nobodys discussing topics, there discussing fan base.
  
  If you had read the books however, you would have seen that the vampires in this story are nothing like the half-baked ghoulish creeps that actually have been played out.
  
  Lastly, she embraced her fan base becuase maybe she actually realizes that without her fans, the series would be nothing! Unlike Rowling who seems to think that all the fans that supported her had nothing to do with the millions of dollars she now possess
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- tubes, 6 Aug 2008 @ 1:49pm
  
  Re:
  GOTH = EXCUSE FOR UGLY PEOPLE TO BE UGLY
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 6 Aug 2008 @ 11:31am

"Well maybe Rowling wanted to leave some aspects of the story up to the reader's interpretation. Perhaps having a supplement to AID the reader's experience is unnecessary and against Rowling's vision for the Harry Potter books."

What she wants is fucking irrelevant to copyright law. Fuck her.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Saxon, 6 Aug 2008 @ 11:31am

Like she cares what you think
JK's the richest woman in England. Plus she's done with the Harry Potter series. I don't think needs the extra "advertising" someone putting out a lexicon of her book provides. If she wants to alienate her fans, that's fine with her, but it's certainly not stupid of her like you make it out to be. What does she have to lose?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Greg, 6 Aug 2008 @ 11:48am
  
  Re: Like she cares what you think
  Possible future sales of her books by pissing off her potential reader base?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 6 Aug 2008 @ 12:19pm
    
    Re: Re: Like she cares what you think
    Possible sales of future books she writes?
    
    That is, if she angers her fans now, she may not be able to sell anything later, a la Metallica.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 6 Aug 2008 @ 12:56pm
      
      Re: Re: Re: Like she cares what you think
      as it is, I already encourage my friends to checkout the books or borrow them from me. if she writes more books, I plan to do the same. I might read her stories, but she won't be getting a penny from it.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- interval, 6 Aug 2008 @ 1:22pm
  
  Re: Like she cares what you think
  I don't think its constructive to include how rich an author is in the argument. This Lexicon is completely legal, above board, and fine from a legal standpoint. That's it, now more need be said. Rowling's social status has nothing to do with it. If Rowling was still sleeping in coffee shops and had been ripped off by every publisher from Edinburgh to Santa Monica, this 3rd party work, this "Lexicon" of Harry Potternalia would still be legal, moral, and probably a sound effort for the author. Of course, Your argument would be different...
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 6 Aug 2008 @ 11:32am

Ghouls are where it's at, moron...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 6 Aug 2008 @ 11:33am

Correction: ghouls in branded communities.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
window tint, 6 Aug 2008 @ 11:51am

Billionaire Mindset
Funny how being fabulously wealthy and successful billionaire doesn't help her relax and create something closer relationships with her fan base.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 6 Aug 2008 @ 11:52am

my grandma always said, "you'll catch more fly with honey, then with lemon juice."

Sue your fans, and they get mad at you??? what a crazy idea?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 6 Aug 2008 @ 12:54pm
  
  Re:
  huh, I've heard a similar saying from my family, but it was vinegar, not lemon juice. maybe because we all like lemon juice?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - A Different Coward, 7 Aug 2008 @ 4:56am
    
    Re: Re:
    We've moved on to the lemon juice bit because the one about vinegar has been debunked.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Dan, 7 Aug 2008 @ 7:50am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      Crap, you beat me to it.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Dan, 7 Aug 2008 @ 7:48am
    
    Re: Re:
    Actually, you do catch more flies with vinegar than honey.
    In related news, a watched pot does boil.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
FITZ, 6 Aug 2008 @ 12:47pm

Actually...
The Harry Potter Lexicon is covered with inadequately cited extractions from J.K. Rowling's Copyrighted works.
Many different books have been published about the Harry Potter universe, but they've all been composed of original, historical, and other legal content. These publications were not fought.
Rowling loves her fans. There's even a book about the Harry Potter fan community, whose author speaks frequently with Rowling.
The book in question was essentially a print version of the internet site, so one only needs to visit that website to see how much is taken directly from J.K. Rowling's books without proper citation.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- DanC, 6 Aug 2008 @ 2:15pm
  
  Re: Actually...
  The book in question was essentially a print version of the internet site, so one only needs to visit that website to see how much is taken directly from J.K. Rowling's books without proper citation.
  
  Since the book in question hasn't been published yet, you're apparently just parroting Rowling's complaint. You don't have any proof of your claims.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - FITZ, 8 Aug 2008 @ 7:58am
    
    Re: Re: Actually...
    @DanC: Usually publication contracts aren't signed before an author has at least some idea of the content. In this case, it is well-known that they would essentially print the website. So while there may not be a tangible published book, there is a book that is fighting to be published. That is the book in question. I thought that was pretty clear.
    If you don't want to show me proof that I'm wrong, then I guess we're at a stale-mate and you're gonna have to take my word for it.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - DanC, 9 Aug 2008 @ 4:42pm
      
      Re: Re: Re: Actually...
      In this case, it is well-known that they would essentially print the website. So while there may not be a tangible published book, there is a book that is fighting to be published. That is the book in question. I thought that was pretty clear.
      
      No, it was well known that they wanted to adapt the website into book form. It was automatically assumed, with no evidence, that the book was going to be a direct copy & paste job. Yes, there is a book in question. However, you cannot speak directly to the contents of that book, because it hasn't been published. You are merely speculating.
      
      If you don't want to show me proof that I'm wrong, then I guess we're at a stale-mate and you're gonna have to take my word for it.
      
      Burden of proof resides on those making the accusations. You're towing Rowling's argument with no evidence to back it up, and asking to be proven wrong. I decline, therefore, to take your word on anything. In order to properly argue or debate a topic, you should have some way of backing up your points.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Superhero, 6 Aug 2008 @ 12:51pm

Lets compare.....
About Ms Meyer
Who is she?
How many books has she published?
How many millions of copies she has sold?
How many books have been made into movies?
Is she a billionaire?
How many millions of Fans does she has?

Again....... who is she? A bored housewife from new england who writes because she is bored?

(I feel good about myself now. I too can thrash perfectly normal and creative people for no apparent reason :) )
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- unknown, 6 Aug 2008 @ 1:42pm
  
  Re:Actually
  By the way fucktard, shes from Arizona, i dont belive thats in the new england area!
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 6 Aug 2008 @ 12:51pm

Meyer embraced the fans because her books suck. They didn't sell well until she involved the few fans she had. Once she did, her fans started to bully people in other fandoms, until they read the books out of self preservation, just to shut the sanctimonious asses up.

Now there's a huge backlash against not just the books, but the author. (See livejournal.com and encyclopedia dramatica for examples.)

I'm all for sharing and open dialogue with fans, but not to the point the fans turn into raving lunatic twats.

It's a fine line and her fans crossed it. For that reason alone I won't read the books, see the movie or spend any money on any associated products.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- moe, 6 Aug 2008 @ 1:14pm
  
  Re:
  Ok, read what you just wrote:
  
  "her fans started to bully people in other fandoms, until they read the books out of self preservation"
  
  Are f'n kidding me? Seriously, bullying and self-preservation?
  
  Get a grip, dude.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - interval, 6 Aug 2008 @ 1:24pm
    
    Re: Re:
    Agreed. WTF are you talking about...? "Twats", must be an English git.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
bobbknight, 6 Aug 2008 @ 1:35pm

Issues
JK has all the money she needs. What she does not have is absolute control, this is her woman's issue, she seems to be very controlling.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Bored Reader, 6 Aug 2008 @ 1:50pm

Now I have heard rumors about Rowling's being a control freak on this universe. That is to say I heard she refused to let a roleplaying game of it be created because she didn't want others influencing the Harry Potter World.

The ramifications of this is clear, it changes your opinion of the author. We don't decide what happens to her but we do decide what we think of her given this information and other information.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- nonuser, 6 Aug 2008 @ 4:28pm
  
  Re:
  Ever wonder why we don't see any new Peanuts comics? It's because Charles M. Schulz had it written into his contract with King Features, that nobody would take over the strip after he died. It was his baby and he didn't want anyone to mess it up, which evidently was what he was sure would happen.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 6 Aug 2008 @ 4:47pm
    
    Re: Re:
    but other people are allowed to make do stuff like make parodies, fake strips, and reference books for peanuts if they want. JKR is pursuing people that create more interest in her books, Mr. Schulz just didn't want another author to create official comic that gets printed in the papers.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - PaulT (profile), 6 Aug 2008 @ 5:06pm
    
    Re: Re:
    That'll work for a while. Then the Peanuts characters will lapse into the public domain, and anyone can do anything with it. Schultz has written his heir (if he has them) out of an exclusive contract to take the strip into the direction he may have wanted in the meantime, though.
    
    Let's get this straight - art belongs to society. Copyright and contracts exist to let the authors make a living from their work. After that, the rights revert to the rest of us. Would Shakespeare or Beethoven have approved of all of the many uses of their works over the last few hundred years? Probably not. Is our society better off for having those uses? Absolutely.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Dan, 7 Aug 2008 @ 7:52am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      Apparently you haven't seen the version of Romeo & Juliet with Leo DiCaprio in it.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - CanCon, 10 Aug 2008 @ 1:45pm
      
      Re: Re: Re: Peanuts
      Yeah, but hasn't copyright been extended to like 95 years after the author's death? Schultz's heirs will have heirs by then.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - DanC, 10 Aug 2008 @ 3:14pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Peanuts
        70 years, unfortunately.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 6 Aug 2008 @ 1:54pm

"..the Harry Potter universe..." Are you kidding me? There is no "universe" it's a bunch of made up bullshit about wizards for children's books. 8 year olds dude!

"Harry Potter fan community" Holy christ, more like the get a fucking life community!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
She Who Must Not Be Named, 3 Sep 2008 @ 6:53pm

It's obvious who actually knows what they're talking about
I find this pathetic because, from all the JKR-bashing it's been made pretty clear that none of the bashers know crap about her. If you had really been following the news you would know that JKR had plans, even before the 7th book was out, to publish her own written Encyclopedia with new and old information about her books and characters. The reason she sued the Lexicon guys is because they were planning to use a lot of her material directly quoted, WITHOUT PERMISSION. Do people not know the definition of copyright?

Stupidhead Meyer apparently also plans to publish an encyclopedia (according to an ad in her last book), no doubt getting the idea from JKR. While you say that SM has given out a lot of background info on her characters, JKR has given SO MUCH MORE. Never has a book's characters, setting, background, everything been layed out with so much detail. Unlike SM's answer to certain questions abotu her characters ("I dont know yet"), JKR actually thinks about her writing.

JKR KNOWS she has no one to thank for her wealth but her fans. SM, oh boohoo, feels sad that she became popular enough for people to actually care enough to read a leaked book, and bailed on her fans. She also blatantly refused to accept that SO MANY of her fans hated her last book. You tell me now who respects her fans.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
mike, 1 Oct 2010 @ 11:52am

All of you people who say there is no copywright infringement are retarded. The Idea of the Lexicon does not infringe on copywright law in any way, however, there are literally HUNDREDS (if not thousands) of direct quotes from the copywrighted works without proper citation. Anyone who has taken an eighth grade English class should know this is called plagiarism.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]